CVC is CBI's supervisor, not Law Ministry

CBI's supervising authority is the CVC in case of investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

NEW DELHI: The CBI manual contradicts the government's stance that it did no wrong in vetting the draft status report of the agency's probe in the coal allocation case, say legal experts, former CBI officials and activists. The manual says while CBI's superintendence is vested in the central government, its supervising authority is the Central Vigilance Commission in case of investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Spelling out CBI's stance, director Ranjit Sinha said the report was not shared with CVC as there was no need for it. He said there are no written guidelines on whether CBI should share its probe reports with the government in court-monitored cases.

"The CBI manual or the CVC Act does not mention what we should do in court-monitored probes or whether should we share our reports with the government or not. There is no government circular or any internal circular in CBI on the same. In the present case too, there was no injunction on us to not share the report with the government. We will welcome the court to settle the principle in such matters," Sinha told ET. The probe into coal blocks allocation turned into a courtmonitored probe after the Supreme Court asked CBI to provide regular status reports on the probe on January 24.

Law Minister Ashwani Kumar had earlier told ET that his ministry was the statutory mandated legal advisor to CBI and SC had never asked CBI not to take legal advice from it. A person familiar with the government's legal strategy said that the government would reiterate this stance before SC next week. The manual appears to contradict this reading. It states while CBI is authorised to contact and correspond directly with ministries, these interactions may be in regard to collection of information, obtaining sanction for prosecution of accused persons, transfer of suspects or accused persons, suspension of public servants and departmental action. It states the director of the prosecution division of the agency is responsible for tendering legal advice in all CBI cases. "CBI cannot have any investigative report vetted by anyone outside the agency," says senior SC lawyer Mukul Rohatgi.

On Tuesday SC had asked CBI to explain whether the law minister had the power to call for the status report. An ex-CBI head said CBI's prosecution division gives legal advice and the law ministry's role is relevant only in cases where the services of its law officers are needed in cases which have been appealed before a higher court.

The manual, according to this person, states that only when there is a difference in opinion between CBI head and the head of its prosecution division can the Attorney General's views be sought through the law ministry.

Former journalist Vineet Narain, whose PIL culminated in an SC judgement that directed CVC to supervise CBI, says the agency has never been able to effectively investigate high-profile cases. "There is no need for CBI director to refer to the political masters especially when the agency is investigating a case," says Narain who intends to file an intervention application on the matter.